Key result
Prosthesis-patient mismatch occurred in 38.4% of patients after transapical aortic valve implantation but was not associated with adverse clinical outcomes or survival.
Why the study?
What is the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transapical aortic valve implantation using the Edwards SAPIEN prosthesis, and does it affect clinical outcomes?
Cohort (n=112)
What is the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transapical aortic valve implantation using the Edwards SAPIEN prosthesis, and does it affect clinical outcomes?
While prosthesis-patient mismatch calculated by the continuity equation is common after transapical TAVI, it does not appear to negatively impact 1-year survival or functional status, suggesting standard PPM definitions may not be suitable for TAVI.
OBJECTIVES: Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is defined as a too small effective orifice area (EOA) of the prosthetic valve in relation to the patient's body size and has been documented to be related to adverse outcomes after conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR). Aim of this study was to analyze the incidence of PPM after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (T-AVI) using the Edwards SAPIEN prosthesis and its relation to postoperative outcome. METHODS: 200 consecutive high-risk patients underwent transapical aortic valve implantation (TA-AVI) between February 2006 and January 2009 and fulfilled 1 year follow-up were included. Severe PPM was defined as indexed EOA (EOAi) <0.65 cm2/m2 and moderate PPM as EOAi = 0.65-0.85 cm2/m2, EOA was calculated from transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) measurements using the continuity equation. Total 112 patients with sufficient postoperative TTE image quality formed the study group. RESULTS: EOAi increased from 0.3 ± 0.1 cm2/m2 (preoperatively) to 1.1 ± 0.4 cm2/m2 after TA-AVI (p < 0.001). According to the standard definitions, PPM was seen in 38.4% of the patients and 9.8% presented with severe PPM. The occurrence of PPM had neither an effect on clinical outcome in terms of NYHA class nor on survival. Patients with PPM had significantly higher postoperative transprosthetic gradients (mean gradient 10.4 ± 4.1 versus 7.1 ± 3.0 mm Hg, p < 0.001). Based on the in vitro EOA data obtained from pulse duplicator measurements, however, none of the patients was judged to have PPM. CONCLUSION: Transcatheter AVI provides good antegrade hemodynamic function and EOAi improves significantly. According to standardized evaluations PPM occurs after TA-AVI, but it is not associated with adverse outcomes. Thus use of the continuity equation may not adequately reflect the situation after T-AVI or the current definition of PPM is not suitable for T-AVI prostheses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Linden et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in High-risk patients undergoing transapical aortic valve implantation (n=112). Transapical aortic valve implantation (TA-AVI) using the Edwards SAPIEN prosthesis was evaluated on Incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). Prosthesis-patient mismatch occurred in 38.4% of patients after transapical aortic valve implantation but was not associated with adverse clinical outcomes or survival.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: